Conkling v. Bloodgood

12 Wend. 279
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 5, 1835·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

On a motion for re-taxation of costs in this cause, the Chief Justice ruled, that where a cause is settled after notice of trial, and previous to the circuit, charges for an attorney’s fee and counsel-fee, prepared for trial, are not taxable. He also decided that where a motion is made in a number of causes embraced in the same notice and papers, although but one set of papers can be charged, an attorney’s fee and counsel-fee on motion in each cause, are proper items of taxation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Conkling v. Bloodgood, 12 Wend. 279 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1835).

12 Wend. 279 (Conkling v. Bloodgood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nash v. Hamilton
3 Abb. Pr. 35 (New York Supreme Court, 1856)